Study This, Part 1

Over the past two years, we’ve become obsessed with “the science,” as if science were a synonym for fact. It’s not. Science is a process of discovering what’s true and is (often) subject to change. 

This is especially true in the area of nutrition and training, where the main variable is a human being, no two of which are 100% identical. There are also limits to what we can study in humans and how we can study it because it’s impossible to gather hundreds – or even dozens – of people and put them in a completely controlled environment for the time required to draw absolute conclusions about almost anything. In addition, humans are not petri dishes or lab mice, so any study conducted in those environments can never really be anything more than suggestive. Last but not least, scientists and researchers are also human, which means they are susceptible to the same cultural or political biases as the rest of us. 

Which brings me to the subject of this post: The Minnesota Coronary Survey. Conducted between 1968 and 1973, the MCS was a randomized, double-blind trial that compared a traditional diet containing saturated fats – real butter, milk, cheese, etc. for – to one where those fats were replaced with margarine and seed oils (aka vegetable oils). What makes this study unique is that it took place over four and a half years with 9,000+ participants in a tightly controlled setting, as all the participants were the residents of six Minnesota mental institutions and one nursing home. 

The purpose of the MCS was to test the hypothesis that saturated fats were directly related to heart disease, which was – and still is – the prevailing “wisdom,” thanks in large part to one Ancel Keys (more on him in the next post). The researchers fully expected that the group consuming the low-fat diet would fare better, live longer, etc. 

Except they didn’t. They fared worse, and measurably so.

Again, science is not synonym for fact, but as studies go, this one is considered “gold standard,” and the results are well beyond suggestive. So, why haven’t you heard of this study, and why are the grocery store shelves still full of “vegetable oils,” and why is there still such a push for meat substitutes and plant-based diets? 

The results were never published. Not until 1989 anyway, and only because a family member of one of the researchers opened the boxes in the basement.

But here’s the kicker: When asked why they decided not to publish what is arguably one of the best nutritional studies ever conducted, the researchers said – drumroll, please – they were disappointed with the results. 

It’s impossible, of course, to know how nutritional guidelines would be different had this study been published in a timely manner, but I find it disturbing that a single omission like this may have contributed negatively to the health outcomes of millions of people over two generations now. 

And it gets worse, so if you can stomach it (see what I did there), stay tuned.

Thanks for reading,
Dan

Get your free eBook.
Get Online Coaching.